> David writes: "...It takes a universe of 10^80 particles with the type
> of tuning the universe has in order to get a reasonable probability that
> there would be even one habitable earth like planet."
>
> I don't know where you're coming from with this.
>

Rare Earth. Privileged Planet.
I believe in a certain kind of cosmological evolution.

> We know little about planets outside our solar system. Given the very
> large numbers of stars and galaxies I'd guess there's a good chance the
> number of Earth-like planets in the universe is large.
>

They also have to be in a solar system like ours. To be able to support
higher forms of life you have to have an ecosystem that is stable over
billions of years. So if there were 10^30 earth-like planets formed, what
fraction would be in the proper type of solar system?

Around 2000 there was an article in Astronomy magazine that talked about the
carbon concentration in our sector of our arm of the galaxy being way
higher than elsewhere in the galaxy. This was because historically we had a
concentration of supernovas here. So planets elsewhere in the galaxy
wouldn't have enough carbon. I don't know if that would hold for other
galaxies - if the right types of planets form only in the ashes of clumps
of supernovas.

So, when you build a universe if you make it smaller then the chances that
you can get a good planet shrinks. I think its a non-linear function. It
shrinks very rapidly. Although I cannot offer a proof - its more of a
suspicion. The point is that the Sagan attitude of "oh, there's all that
stuff out there and we are so insignificant" is a form of unwarranted
religious awe. There is just a minimum amount of stuff out there to get a
useful set of incubator labs on which to do biology. Call it some sort of
anthropic principle if you want.

> "So the challenge is to show that front-loading is congruent with God
> pre-planning a path to us as individual outcomes. I don't understand how
> that works in a front-loaded universe."
>
> Me neither. But I'd be comfortable with a loose interpretation of
> "pre-planning" if I could get comfortable with front loading to begin with.
>
>
> Don
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2009 4:01 AM
> *Subject:* Fwd: [asa] on miracles
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 7:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] on miracles
> To: Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
>
>
> Don,
>
> I disagree that the universe is all that immense. I think it takes a
> universe of 10^80 particles with the type of tuning the universe has in
> order to get a reasonable probability that there would be even one habitable
> earth like planet.
>
> What do I mean by reasonable? (The term is meaningless without a metric).
> I mean the probability is greater than 10^-50.
>
> To make front loading work the universe would have to be vastly larger.
> Thousands of orders of magnitude larger.
>
> I also disagree about whats important in terms of what we do now. If the
> picture portrayed in the scriptures that God knew us beforehand as
> individuals and planned it all out, if this picture is wrong and that He
> has a plan for history is wrong, then it doesn't matter what we do even one
> tiny little bit. It doesnt even matter that we were here as a race.
>
> So the challenge is to show that front-loading is congruent with God
> pre-planning a path to us as individual outcomes. I don't understand how
> that works in a front-loaded universe.
>
> Best Regards,
> David Clounch
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>wrote:
>
>> Jim writes: "...The front-loading understanding is that an immense and
>> dynamic creation was brought into being, with the capacity for huge numbers
>> of potential developmental trajectories, one of which is the trajectory of
>> which we are a part."
>>
>> This version of front loading seems to make God play dice with
>> the universe on a gargantuan scale. He arranges things so that enormous
>> numbers of worlds come into being in the hope that one of them will turn out
>> to be something he can use. Seen in this light this scenario becomes more
>> remote than ever from anything I'd consider godly.
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
>> *To:* ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:59 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] on miracles
>>
>> [Ooops, I meant to post this. JimA]
>>
>> If you think "deal with the amount of detail necessary", then you may have
>> missed something about the front-loading concept. For many "front loaders"
>> at least, the understanding is not that an immense clockwork was put into
>> motion to produce exactly what we are, along with our particular contexts,
>> both intentionally quite specific in form and function. That idea embodies
>> the notion of a single trajectory leading to us, a tad presumptuous and
>> limiting in my view, considering the immensity of Creation.
>>
>> Instead, the front-loading understanding is that an immense and dynamic
>> creation was brought into being, with the capacity for huge numbers of
>> potential developmental trajectories, one of which is the trajectory of
>> which we are a part. My particular view is that the immensity of the
>> universe (by our measure) is a reflection of the intent to have an intrinsic
>> robustness (with a nod to Howard Van Til) embodying enormous numbers of such
>> trajectories. That creates a universe that is unimaginably abundantly
>> fruitful and diverse development-wise, ensuring at least in part the
>> occurrence of certain kinds of outcomes which we can perhaps reasonably
>> conclude includes the likes of ourselves, in whatever ways and extents we
>> manifest a desired outcome of this intentional dynamic and evolving (yeh, I
>> know) universe. As a part of its robustness, or relentless developmental
>> character, this outcome could occur perhaps, or probably, more than once,
>> though these outcomes would almost necessarily not be identical in physical
>> attributes, and would occur non-concurrently along their own unique
>> timelines.
>>
>> I understand why it is appealing for many reasons to conceptualize a
>> continuously supported/guided creation. At least in the form above,
>> front-loading may leave behind the notion of a certain specificity, a
>> certain uniqueness of purpose and outcome manifest in us, ...or does it?
>>
>> But I would question why all this focus on the physicality of Creation and
>> its functioning. Is that aspect of Creation really central to what we are in
>> our place in this Creation, or is the heart of the matter how we live and
>> act, and have the capacity to bring about that which transcends this
>> physical context (at least in part). It seems to me that the existence and
>> functioning of the physical world is merely(!?) a backdrop or ambiance, or
>> reaction vessel or "soil", a host if you will for what might rhe ultimate
>> expectation or hope for and in us as we continue to learn and grow where we
>> seem to have sprouted in this incredibly verdant and blessed garden.
>>
>> JimA [Friend of ASA]
>>
>> Don Winterstein wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughts.
>>
>> You wrote: "...Distinguishing special guidance from front-loading from
>> ordinary providence is not easy."
>>
>> As I have such a difficult time taking front-loading seriously, I'd like
>> to ask a question to improve my understanding of how others regard it.
>> Namely, if God did everything through front-loading, would he have included
>> a nearby supernova (Ordovician extinction) or an asteroid impact (K-T
>> extinction) as an integral part of the process from before the Big Bang?
>>
>> I suppose to ask the question is to answer it, but at the same time the
>> thing boggles my mind. I really hope God doesn't have to deal with the
>> amount of detail necessary to make something like that happen. If he does,
>> I'm sorry. That's another reason why I prefer ongoing
>> "special guidance." It may not be philosophically or scientifically
>> elegant, but it's so much more compatible with what I perceive as reality,
>> so much easier for mortals to deal with.
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
>> *To:* asa <asa@calvin.edu>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:34 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] on miracles
>>
>> > In other words, while I agree with David C. that God is far more
>> concerned
>> > with spiritual than physical attributes of his creatures--and his
>> > predestining may well not have included shapes of individual body
>> > parts--it's hard for me to imagine any form of marine life or
>> invertebrate
>> > life becoming capable of satisfying God's larger (presumed) requirement.
>> > (Well, maybe if dolphins had arms and hands with opposable thumbs....
>> But
>> > how would they smelt ores under water? We can go into water and air and
>> > space; marine animals would have great difficulty doing much of anything
>> out
>> > of water.)
>>
>> Just to clarify: I do think that the spiritual aspects are more
>> important, but did not mean to take a stand either way as to whether
>> the physical attributes are important.
>>
>> Theologically, I think all the details were predestined and "what
>> might have been" may not be a meaningful question, but as far as I
>> know there's no scientific way to assess those points.
>>
>> There are various studies that support the idea that only a certain
>> range of forms and lifestyles are available, and that almost all of
>> them have been taken by organisms, though of course it's hard to prove
>> without either a large sample of planets with complex life forms that
>> arose independently or else the ability to run an experiment for a
>> billion years or so.
>>
>> Also, a lot of the features of interest here are very hard to quantify
>> and analyze. For example, Gould was quite excited about the fact
>> that, whereas almost all known post-Cambrian arthropods (and all known
>> post-Paleozoic ones) fit into a few categories based on the number,
>> position, and type of appendages (e.g., 0-2 pairs of antennae, which
>> segment has which mouthparts, 6 or 8 or more legs), many of the
>> Cambrian ones do not fit into these groups. On the other hand, most
>> of the Cambrian arthropods are vaguely shrimplike, such that Walcott
>> thought that they could fit into the standard groups and only with the
>> detailed study of the past four decades or so did the anomalies gain
>> attention. In contrast, anyone quickly can tell the differences
>> between a butterfly, a beetle, a bee, and a flea, yet they are all
>> members of a single major group of insects, the holometabolous orders.
>> If the insects had a breathing system that allowed them to get
>> bigger, they might have been able to develop large brains.
>>
>> > And while Gould may have exaggerated the randomness of evolution, from
>> what
>> > I know of it, and most emphatically in acknowledgement of the effects of
>> > mass extinctions, it seems very likely that starting evolution at
>> different
>> > times and places would lead to significantly different outcomes. While
>> > "changing one electron" should not have a major effect (unless it caused
>> a
>> > crucial mutation!), even a minor extinction event should have a
>> noticeable
>> > effect. For example, such extinction is likely to give some species a
>> new
>> > competitive advantage that in turn may lead it to eliminate still other
>> > species.
>> > Many authors have pointed out that more than 99% of all species have
>> gone
>> > extinct. Chances seem very good that, under conditions of randomness and
>> > without any special guidance, the species God wanted would not have
>> > survived.
>> > Don
>>
>> Of course, distinguishing special guidance from front-loading from
>> ordinary providence is not easy.
>>
>> Although mass extinctions are notoriously "random" in being
>> unpredictable and not necessarily sparing apparently successful groups
>> (it's hard to think of any organismal feature short of advanced
>> technological culture that would help avoid an incoming asteroid, for
>> example), often certain characteristics do seem to convey an
>> advantage. Conway Morris's work on the topic is probably the most
>> extensive available, though of course taking a particular stance
>> rather than merely summarizing the pros and cons of all options.
>>
>> A rather odd example comes from Dixon's envisioned world without a K/T
>> impact. Although he rejects Dale Russell's intelligent human-like
>> dinosauroid on ground that evolution is more random than that, a lot
>> of the things he does have look a whole lot like actual non-human
>> animals.
>>
>> --
>> Dr. David Campbell
>> 425 Scientific Collections
>> University of Alabama
>> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
>> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 17 10:18:28 2009